David Brownell wrote:
>> does the community know of any reason to hold this countdown?
>
> Oh, and I'd still like to see the at91sam3 config files
> become non-executable. :)
>
You make me think that next release will be in very far future :)
I guess I have skipped the mentioning of this but c
Zach Welch wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 20:14 +0100, Ian Guffick wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the full list of GPL-compliant solutions for libftd2xx GPL
>>> compliance, after further review, consideration, and enumeration:
>>>
>>> 1) Documentation: build it yourself!
>>> 2) Build-Kit: automate the bui
Alain Mouette wrote:
> Yusuf Caglar AKYUZ escreveu:
>>> Out of sheer curiosity: how will your Qt wrapper be licensed? :) :)
>>>
>> Whichever license is appropriate, both for OpenOCD and FTD2XX. LGPL
>> may be?
>
> The Qt licence is strict GPL, so it cannot
Zach Welch wrote:
> Actually, I see no reason that it cannot be GPL too. It's "only" a
> build tool; it will not be linking to either OpenOCD or FTD2XX, right?
> The full GPL would prevent others from creating proprietary versions of
> your tool, which may or may not be what you desire personally;
Zach Welch wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 01:36 +0300, Yusuf Caglar AKYUZ wrote:
>> Zach Welch wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I will try to summarize the OpenOCD license situation for the community:
>>>
>>> - OpenOCD is licensed under the GPL -- wi
Zach Welch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I will try to summarize the OpenOCD license situation for the community:
>
> - OpenOCD is licensed under the GPL -- without exceptions.
> - Binaries linking to FTD2XX may NOT be distributed.
> - Neither static nor shared, direct nor indirect.
> - There will be
